Why you shouldn't own a SUV: Jesus Doesn't want you to!

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-11-30 10:06pm

When you ride in a Hummer, you ride with Satan.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2002-11-30 10:13pm

I don't think so. They are heavier, which can help in collisions, but they are top heavy. They tip over easier. And since the seats are above the centre of gravity, the more people you have in them, the more dangerous they become.
Generally speaking he who has the more momentum going into a collision comes out better. An Excursion will likely be MUCH better off in a collision than a Civic.

Rolling is only a factor if a torque is provided, this danger can be minimized by numerous engineering tricks. For instance the 2002 Acura MDX 4DR has a five star roll-over rating (better than most trucks/minivans and even some cars). Now an improperly driven SUV (i.e. the moron driving doesn't understand that putting one tire into loose gravel on the shoulder while keeping the rest on the road is a BAD thing) is hideously unsafe, but so too are things like sports cars (which if driven properly are safer than most things on the road).

Safety wise if you really can't beat a Crown Vic, but then it has its own drawbacks.

However I personally don't get why people buy fuel inefficient vehicles and then bitch and moan about gas prices. Why you'd throw money into a fuel inefficient car is beyond me.

I'm all for people buying fuel efficient vehicles ... less demand for gasoline, less money out of my wallet. If it's because they are Greens, fine. If its because they think Jesus wants them to, fine. If it's because Miss Cleo told them to, fine. Their motive does not concern me.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-11-30 11:27pm

tharkûn wrote:people buy fuel inefficient vehicles and then bitch and moan about gas prices. Why you'd throw money into a fuel inefficient car is beyond me.

I'm all for people buying fuel efficient vehicles ... less demand for gasoline, less money out of my wallet. If it's because they are Greens, fine. If its because they think Jesus wants them to, fine. If it's because Miss Cleo told them to, fine. Their motive does not concern me.

Yeah, that about sums it up. Saving money good. Less demand = lower prices for everyone.

As for the safety of SUVs to Cars, I don't know the odds of a rollover vs. the odds of a head on collision, and quite frankly I don't feel like looking them up. So I'll concede that claim till further data is availible.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-30 11:29pm

Less demand = lower prices for everyone

Less demand for gas will increase the price. But I agree that if you have a more efficient car you personally will spend less money.

I could care less about MPG these days. I get 30/gallon which is good. I spend a small amount of money on gas. If I could afford a hybrid I would look into one, especially if they do come out with a van, wagon, or SUV version.

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2002-12-01 01:48am

Everytime I go through the Twin Cities every other car is some sort of SUV, i shit you not. In every car lot Half is SUVs.
And the worst part is there is usually ONE person in it.

Everytime I see a lincoln navigator or hummer I cringe.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-01 02:46am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Less demand = lower prices for everyone
Less demand for gas will increase the price.

Huh? How.

Sienthal · Post by **Sienthal** » 2002-12-01 04:24am

Wow, never seen dogma used to promote a standpoint that I support.
That standpoint being that I hate SUVs, those nasty guzzlers with poor handling, okay versatility, and no style

.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-01 04:27am

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Less demand = lower prices for everyone
Less demand for gas will increase the price.
Huh? How.

The only way that works is economies of scale. With less demand there will be less consumption. Less consumption means less production. This means that certain production methods can no longer be used driving up the cost of production for certain yields. Thus prices increase.

I don't think it applies in this case though.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-01 04:04pm

The only way that works is economies of scale. With less demand there will be less consumption. Less consumption means less production. This means that certain production methods can no longer be used driving up the cost of production for certain yields. Thus prices increase.

I don't think it applies in this case though.

If consumers all of a sudden reduced their comsumptoin of gas by say 10%, the gas companies are going to raise the price to keep revenue stable.

Either that or the supply would be restricted by OPEC or refineries. Either way they are not going to loose money because we save fuel. At least thats my opinion.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2002-12-01 04:09pm

Yes put OPEC only controls a fraction of the oil. Russia, for instance, laughs its ass off every time OPEC cuts production. All it takes is one greedy bastard trying to undersell the others.

For instance OPEC cuts world production 20% to drive up prices. Russia increases production to make up the shortfall and rakes in the cash.

Likewise if Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. all fix prices to make up lost revenue, but if Amaco decides to screw them and bids just under them ... then Amaco wins huge.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-01 04:13pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
The only way that works is economies of scale. With less demand there will be less consumption. Less consumption means less production. This means that certain production methods can no longer be used driving up the cost of production for certain yields. Thus prices increase.

I don't think it applies in this case though.
If consumers all of a sudden reduced their comsumptoin of gas by say 10%, the gas companies are going to raise the price to keep revenue stable.

Either that or the supply would be restricted by OPEC or refineries. Either way they are not going to loose money because we save fuel. At least thats my opinion.

That would only work if the elasticity of demand is low so that additional consumers don't leave. However, since a bunch left anyways it appears that the elasticity is high. It wouldn't work like that.

As for OPEC, that is a different matter. They may raise prices or lower supply, but with people leaving already the only way for that to work is if the supply is even lower than the amount demanded and the elasticity again is low enough that the companies can jack up the prices too not lose money and not lose consumers.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-01 04:31pm

I dont remember how elasticity works, so you guys are probably right. Im coming from a frame of reference where as demand for electricity dropped in CA last year, the power companies restricted the supply on purpose to raise prices. So theory of supply/demand went out the window because the corporations fixed things. ie) Enron.

Its probably not the same with gas, since there are so many different suppliers and the regulatory environment is not the same. California botched its energy market in the mid 90's with a bungled de-regulation scheme.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-01 04:41pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:I dont remember how elasticity works, so you guys are probably right. Im coming from a frame of reference where as demand for electricity dropped in CA last year, the power companies restricted the supply on purpose to raise prices. So theory of supply/demand went out the window because the corporations fixed things. ie) Enron.

Its probably not the same with gas, since there are so many different suppliers and the regulatory environment is not the same. California botched its energy market in the mid 90's with a bungled de-regulation scheme.

A low elasticity means that as prices rise, not that many people will stop buying. A high elasticity means that a small change in price will have a huge impact on demand.

The power incident caused the supply to be so low that the drop in demand didn't matter. This occurred because there weren't that many companies that supply energy, like you've said.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2002-12-01 05:03pm

Cali's power crisis occured because it was only half deregulated. The power transmission company could only charge it's consumers a certain rate, but it could be charged any price for power generated. Then you had some guys who came up with the brilliant idea of routing power out of the state, only to sell that same power back into the state as the price shock went up.

Couple that with the utterly insane prohibition on long term power contracts (so you HAVE to buy on the spot market) and a whole slew of other shoddy practices ... it was a ticking timebomb.

California is perfect example of how NOT to dick with a market.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-01 08:48pm

Then you had some guys who came up with the brilliant idea of routing power out of the state, only to sell that same power back into the state as the price shock went up.

If by "WE" you mean Californias, no. It was out of state power companies that pulled shit like that.

But you will get no arguement from me that the half-dereg was the best example of out to screw up what was a perfectly good system before.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-01 10:14pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
The only way that works is economies of scale. With less demand there will be less consumption. Less consumption means less production. This means that certain production methods can no longer be used driving up the cost of production for certain yields. Thus prices increase.

I don't think it applies in this case though.
If consumers all of a sudden reduced their comsumptoin of gas by say 10%, the gas companies are going to raise the price to keep revenue stable.

But an increase in prices would drive more to alternative energy, thus cutting demand more. And it ALL Oil companies raised prices, they'd get hit with price-fixing charges.

Either that or the supply would be restricted by OPEC or refineries. Either way they are not going to loose money because we save fuel. At least thats my opinion.

Doesn't matter. If demand is reduced by 10% and they reduce supply by 10% the prices should remain slightly lower. However, if OPEC reduces supply by a large enough amount to increase prices, non OPEC nations will increase the supply, cause there's more proffit in it. Also, more people will make the switch to alternative power sources.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-01 10:22pm

But an increase in prices would drive more to alternative energy, thus cutting demand more. And it ALL Oil companies raised prices, they'd get hit with price-fixing charges.

I was not thinking of a big increase in prices. Just enough to keep profits close to where they are now.

Doesn't matter. If demand is reduced by 10% and they reduce supply by 10% the prices should remain slightly lower. However, if OPEC reduces supply by a large enough amount to increase prices, non OPEC nations will increase the supply, cause there's more proffit in it. Also, more people will make the switch to alternative power sources.

I agree with this part in repsect to OPEC. As for switching, I bet Americans would continue their driving habits even if the price of gas doubled. They might take out the SUV less ( those who own two cars anyway ) But for people like me, with just a Civic, Id drive the same amout regardless because even at that price it enables me to live my life.

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-12-01 11:02pm

Other than for style and ego, I don't see much point in buying a SUV if you don't live in a rough terrain area, or if you don't do much transportation. Fuel efficiency is pretty important for me. Living with a limited budget, less trips to the gas station = better for my wallet. Besides, I like maneuverability when I have to drive through campus-town.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-01 11:06pm

Other than for style and ego, I don't see much point in buying a SUV if you don't live in a rough terrain area, or if you don't do much transportation. Fuel efficiency is pretty important for me. Living with a limited budget, less trips to the gas station = better for my wallet. Besides, I like maneuverability when I have to drive through campus-town.

I think most people oppose SUV's because far too many folks buy them only for ego and style. However, this opposition some times goes to far and condemns anyone for owning a SUV period.

A sensible SUV like the Santa Fe and some others are reasonable cars to buy. I dont see any difference between them and a van. Id like to see better Wagons on the market but the only ones out there I like are way too expensive. ( ie VOLVO )